Ex Parte vanderZweep et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2019

13947818 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/947,818 07/22/2013 Jeff vanderZweep
89955 7590 02/28/2019
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0038915 (002.1426) 4131
EXAMINER
MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF V ANDERZWEEP, TIM FELKE, and
RAGHUPATHY KOLANDA VELU
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7, 818 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 9-27, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January
9, 2018; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 19, 2018; Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed April 19, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
May 18, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec."), filed July 22, 2013.
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a method and system "for creating and
using a fault model comprising one or more fault model components," and
"creating a reusable fault model component and incorporating the reusable
fault model component into the fault model." Abstract. Appellants' fault
model may include "one or more assemblies ... [and] one or more sub-
assemblies," where "an assembly ... may be defined as a lower level
model" and the "assembly may include one or more components [(parts of
the fault model)], called sub-assemblies." Spec. ,r,r 33-35.
Claims 9, 16, and 21 are independent. Representative claim 9 is
reproduced below:
9. A method for creating reusable sub-assemblies for use in
a fault model for an apparatus comprising at least one of a
transportation apparatus, a mechanical device, and an electronic
device, the method comprising:
importing, by at least one processor, design data for an
assembly of the fault model, the assembly comprising a software
representation of the apparatus, the software representation
comprising a plurality of sub-assemblies, wherein the apparatus
comprises a plurality of components, wherein each of the
plurality of sub-assemblies comprises a software representation
of one of the plurality of components, wherein each of the
reusable sub-assemblies comprises a fault modeling component,
and wherein each of the plurality of sub-assemblies is associated
with a sub-assembly type;
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the design data to
identify one of the plurality of sub-assemblies based on pre-
determined criteria;
identifying, by the at least one processor, a sub-assembly
type associated with the one of the plurality of sub-assemblies;
comparing the identified sub-assembly type to a plurality
of types, wherein the plurality of types is associated with a
2
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
plurality of complete reusable sub-assemblies stored in a system
memory element communicatively coupled to the at least one
processor;
when the identified sub-assembly type does not match one
of the plurality of types,
creating a complete reusable sub-assembly, by
instantiating an object of a specific class including all
attributes characterized by the specific class, wherein the
specific class comprises the identified sub-assembly type,
and wherein the instantiated object comprises the
complete reusable sub-assembly; and
incorporating the complete reusable sub-assembly
into the assembly of the fault model;
executing the fault model, by the at least one processor, to
identify and isolate one or more faults occurring during operation
of the apparatus; and
presenting, by a display device communicatively coupled
to the at least one processor, illustrated detail associated with the
one or more faults occurring during operation of the apparatus,
the illustrated detail comprising identification of the one or more
faults and an isolated location of the one or more faults.
App. Br. 16-22 (Claims App.).
Evidence Considered
Greulich et al. ("Greulich") US 6,952,658 B2 Oct. 4, 2005
Khuzadi US 2008/0297333 Al Dec. 4, 2008
Peters et al. ("Peters") WO 2013/040043 Al Mar. 21, 2013
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 9-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khuzadi, Peters, and Greulich. Final Act. 4--14.
3
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 9, 16, and 21, the Examiner finds
Khuzadi's method and system (200) for designing a health monitor system,
shown in Figures 2 and 5, teach a method and system for creating reusable
sub-assemblies for use in a fault model for an apparatus, by importing design
data for an assembly of the fault model as claimed. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Khuzadi Abstract, Figs. 2 and 5). In particular, the Examiner finds
Khuzadi's health monitor design tool (200) assembles a fault model in the
context of a functional model (300) of a vehicle, processing and loading
models (210), and a model of causes ( cause tree 400) for hazardous
operating conditions, the fault model's assembly comprising a software
representation of the apparatus (vehicle), as claimed. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing
Khuzadi ,r,r 46, 61, Fig. 2); Ans. 3 (citing Khuzadi Figs. 4A--4B). The
Examiner further finds Khuzadi' s software representation includes reusable
sub-assemblies representing the vehicle's components, the sub-assemblies
comprising fault modeling components as claimed. Final Act. 5 ( citing
Khuzadi ,r,r 41, 61, 87, 129); Ans. 3--4. The Examiner also finds Khuzadi
executes the fault model to identify and isolate faults occurring during
apparatus (vehicle) operation, as claimed. Final Act. 5 ( citing Khuzadi
,r,r 26, 3 5).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on: (1)
Peters for teaching the claimed "comparing the identified sub-assembly type
to a plurality of types" and "creating a complete reusable sub-assembly, by
instantiating an object of a specific class [associated with an identified sub-
assembly type]"; and (2) Greulich for teaching the claimed presentation of
"illustrated detail associated with the one or more faults occurring during
4
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
operation of the apparatus" including fault identification and location, as
claimed. Final Act. 6-8 (citing Peters 4:15-25, 6:24--31, 26:31, Fig. 5;
Greulich Fig. 3, ( emphasis omitted)).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Khuzadi
and Peters. In particular, Appellants argue "Khuzadi does not disclose fault
analysis, fault modeling, fault modeling components, or reusable sub-
assemblies that comprise fault modeling components" as recited in claims 9,
16, and 21. App. Br. 10-11. Appellants argue Khuzadi's functional model
and model of causes ( cause tree) are not a fault model, and do not include
"software representations of components of an apparatus" as claimed. Reply
Br. 5. Rather, Khuzadi merely "models conditions and causes of conditions .
. . . [which] is not the same as modeling an apparatus or component." App.
Br. 10. Appellants additionally argue Peters does not disclose (i) a specific
class, (ii) using a fault model, (iii) "creating and incorporating reusable fault
modeling components into a fault model," (iv) "instantiated objects of
specific classes to create reusable fault model components," and (v) an
instantiated object comprising a complete reusable sub-assembly, as
claimed. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants also dispute the
Examiner's rationale for combining the references, and assert Peters and
Khuzadi are non-analogous to one another. App. Br. 13-14.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2---6. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the
outset, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 3 6 7
5
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants' claim 9 (and similarly, claims 16 and 21) recites, inter
alia, "a fault model for an apparatus ... the assembly [of the fault model]
comprising a software representation of the apparatus." Appellants'
Specification does not provide an explicit and exclusive definition of the
claim term "fault model." Rather, Appellants' Specification broadly
describes a "fault model" as "an engineering model" that "generally
illustrates detail regarding the functionality of an assembly: how the
assembly works, how the assembly fails, and what the assembly looks like
when it fails," where the "assembly may include, without limitation:
transportation apparatus (e.g., vehicles)." Spec. ,r,r 2, 33, 35 (emphasis
added). Based on Appellants' Specification, the Examiner has broadly
interpreted the term "fault model" as encompassing Khuzadi' s functional
model, processing and loading models, and model of causes ( cause tree).
Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3.
We find the Examiner's interpretation reasonable and consistent with
Appellants' Specification. Particularly, Khuzadi' s functional model includes
a software representation of a vehicle's component parts, "describ[ing] how
the vehicle operates and the components that are used to create the vehicle,"
and "how the different components operate through different phases of
operation for the vehicle." Khuzadi ,r,r 46-47, 87. Khuzadi'sfunctional
model enables a "safety and reliability analysis" including a "failure mode
6
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
effects analysis" of "all potential or design-based hazardous conditions that
may develop during the operation of the vehicle" and of "possible sources of
loss in the operation and design of the vehicle." Khuzadi ,r,r 35, 88, 96.
Khuzadi' s processing and loading models are used to "determine when a
hazardous condition is developing," and Khuzadi's model of causes (cause
tree) models a hierarchy of causes for the identified hazardous conditions.
See Khuzadi ,r,r 9, 41, 61, Figs. 4A--4B. Particularly, the cause tree models
"events that may result in a vehicle or other system entering a hazardous
condition," such as high pressure inlet valves failing in an open state (an
event) causing excessive pressure in the vehicle's fuel tank and rupture of
the tank (a hazardous condition). Khuzadi ,r 33. Thus, Khuzadi'sfunctional
model, processing and loading models, and cause tree describe how the
vehicle works and how it fails----commensurate with the description of "fault
model" in Appellants' Specification (Spec. ,r 33).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Khuzadi teaches the
claimed assembly of the fault model, the assembly comprising a software
representation of the apparatus. Final Act. 4.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Khuzadi does
not create sub-assemblies that comprise (i) software representations of the
vehicle's components and (ii) fault modeling components for the fault
model, as recited in claims 9, 16, and 21. App. Br. 9--11. Initially, we note
Appellants' Specification describes a "sub-assembly" as a "lower level
model" that refers to a part of the fault model, the sub-assembly modelling a
component (e.g., a vehicle component). See Spec. ,r,r 34--35, 41.
Appellants' sub-assembly may further include a fault modeling component.
See Spec. ,r,r 28, 56.
7
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
Commensurate with the description of "sub-assembly" in Appellants'
Specification, Khuzadi's fault model includes sub-assemblies (lower level
models) that "provide descriptions as to how the different components
operate through different phases of operation for the vehicle," the modeled
components including "a guidance system, a hydraulics system, an engine,
valve, a fuel system, or landing gear." Khuzadi ,r,r 46, 87, 129; Ans. 5; Final
Act. 5. Khuzadi' s lower level models further include cause tree nodes,
where "each node can be considered a fault modeling component." Final
Act. 5 (citing Khuzadi ,r,r 61, 129); see also Ans. 3 (citing Khuzadi Figs.
4A--4B). For example, cause tree nodes 412 (loss in propellant storage), 422
(improper propellant mass), 424 (improper propellant transfer), and 426
(improper propellant pressure) (see Khuzadi's Fig. 4A) describe how a
component (a fuel system) fails and system characteristics during failure-
commensurate with the description of fault modeling in Appellants'
Specification (see Spec. ,r,r 23, 33). Thus, we disagree with Appellants'
argument that Khuzadi's "cause tree ... includes zero components." Reply
Br. 6.
As the Examiner further observes, Khuzadi' s models are reusable-as
claimed and described in Appellants' Specification-because the models can
be run repeatedly. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 4; see Khuzadi ,r,r 41, 46, 87, 92-94,
127-129, Fig. 5; Spec. ,r,r 53, 62, 70. We therefore agree with the Examiner
that Khuzadi teaches the claimed "reusable sub-assemblies" each comprising
"a software representation of one of the plurality of [apparatus] components"
and "a fault modeling component." Final Act. 5.
We further note Appellants' arguments regarding the claimed fault
model and fault modeling components are not commensurate with the scope
8
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
of claims 9, 16, and 21. See, e.g., App. Br. 10 ("[Khuzadi's] modeling
conditions and/ or circumstances is [sic] not the same as modeling an
apparatus or component" and "Khuzadi defines and analyzes a causative
condition for a potential fault, and not a fault itself'); Reply Br. 5
("[Khuzadi' s] cause tree describes a potential hazardous condition as a loss
of function, instead of a component failure or component error typically
associated with fault modeling"). The claimedfault model andfault
modeling components do not exclude descriptions of components' functions,
components' loss of function, or descriptions of causative conditions for
faults, as Appellants advocate. See App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants also argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that the
Examiner "fails to address that the [claimed] 'fault modeling' ... includes
executing the fault model to identify and isolate faults occurring during
operation of the apparatus." Reply Br. 6. The Reply Brief is not an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not. Ex parte
Borden, 2010 WL 191083 at *2 (BPAI 2010) (informative); see also
37 CPR 41.41 (b )(2)(2012) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which
was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised
in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection,
will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal,
unless good cause is shown.") Moreover, the Examiner did address
"executing the fault model," finding that Khuzadi discloses the limitation.
Final Act. 5 (citing Khuzadi ,r,r 26, 35).
Appellants further argue Peters does not disclose "a specific class" as
claimed. App. Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Peters'
9
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
attributes-which can used by the user to search for an appropriate reusable
module-identify classes of modules having common attributes, such as
product type and characteristics. Ans. 4--5 ( citing Peters 6 :24--31 ); see also
Peters 16:22-26 ("Attributes 408 may be used to track ... module type, part
number, product line, etc. in the underlying database"). This is
commensurate with the description of "classes" in Appellants' Specification.
Spec. ,r,r 46-4 7 ( describing "[ s Jpecific classes ... realized at the component
specification level," such as "specific classes heavy chassis 506 and light
chassis 508" and "specific [ wheel] classes Mag 17" ... , Alum 15" ... , and
Steel 15"").
Appellants' additional argument that Peters does not teach creating
"reusable fault modeling components" and "instantiated objects of specific
classes to create reusable fault model components" (Reply Br. 7; App. Br.
12) are not commensurate with the scope of claims 9, 16, and 21. Claims 9,
16, and 21 recite instantiating an object to create a complete reusable sub-
assembly but do not recite creating a reusable fault modeling component.
That is, claim 9 does not require the created reusable sub-assembly to
include a fault modeling component.
With respect to the claimed "creating a complete reusable sub-
assembly, by instantiating an object of a specific class," we agree with the
Examiner that Peters creates a complete reusable sub-assembly (a reusable
module usable in multiple design iterations of an engineering system) by
instantiating an object of a specific class (a designed engineering system).
Ans. 4 (citing Peters 4:15-25, 6:24--31); see also Peters 12:3-8 ("reusable
modules ... may be used in the development of any object of development,
including ... automobiles, aircraft, ... vehicles" and "any component
10
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
associated with a gas turbine engine, such as a gas turbine engine blade, gas
turbine engine combustor liner, gas turbine engine injector, etc."), Figs 6-7
(instantiating a turbine blade and a turbine engine by physical models). This
is commensurate with the description of "instantiating an object" in
Appellants' Specification. See Spec. ,r,r 49, 62. 3
Appellants further argue "Peters does not disclose using a fault model
or creating and incorporating reusable fault modeling components into a
fault model." Reply Br. 7. Claims 9, 16, and 21, however, do not recite
incorporating a createdfault modeling component into a fault model; rather,
they recite incorporating the created sub-assembly into the fault model.
Appellants' argument also fails to address the combination of teachings
proposed by the Examiner. Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 8. Particularly, the
Examiner cited (i) Peters for teaching "creating a complete reusable sub-
assembly, by instantiating an object of a specific class" and incorporating
the created complete reusable sub-assembly into a machine model, and (ii)
Khuzadi for teaching the machine model could be a vehicle fault model.
Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 8. The Examiner has also articulated sufficient
reasoning for including Peters' reusable module design tool-which "is
neutral and applicable to any specific modeled system"-in Khuzadi's fault
model. Ans. 6. Particularly, the Examiner finds "the design tool of Peters
3 Paragraph 49 in the Specification describes instantiating an automobile
Model A with actual components, including a light chassis and a V6
gasoline engine, to obtain instantiated object "VIN 123 (536) [that] is a
complete model of a single version of specific class Model A." Spec. ,r 49.
Paragraph 62 in the Specification further provides "[a] sub-assembly is
'complete' when it has been instantiated as an object, including all specific
attributes required for such." Spec. ,r 62 (emphasis added).
11
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
can be used for designing anything, including the vehicle fault modeling of
Khuzadi." Ans. 6. The Examiner reasons the skilled artisan would combine
Peters and Khuzadi to enable Khuzadi to generate its fault model using
Peters' design neutral method that creates flexible, complex, modular, multi-
physics systems by a distributed work force and supply chain. Ans. 5---6
(citing Peters 4:13-15; Khuzadi ,r 46, Abstract). We therefore agree with the
Examiner the combination of Peters and Khuzadi teaches "incorporating the
complete reusable sub-assembly into the assembly of the fault model" as
recited in claims 9, 16, and 21.
Appellants oppose the combination because Peters and Khuzadi are
allegedly non-analogous, and "Peters is unrelated to analyzing or designing a
system." App. Br. 13. However, Peters' disclosure is not restricted to a
CAD-format translation file system, as Appellants argue. App. Br. 13.
Rather, Peters and Khuzadi both teach design system models based on lower
level component models. Ans. 5---6; see Peters 4: 15-25, 12:3-8; Khuzadi
,r,r 87, 129. Thus, Peters and Khuzadi are analogous art in the field of
system design. Final Act. 8.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument the combination
carries no reasonable expectation of success because "[i]t would be
impossible for the Khuzadi cause tree to incorporate or use [Peters'] neutral
files describing components in a universal way that applies to various types
of CAD computer systems." App. Br. 14. Appellants have provided
insufficient evidence supporting their argument, and we agree with the
Examiner Peters and Khuzadi and compatible and combinable. Ans. 6.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 16, and 21. As such, we sustain the
12
Appeal2018-006839
Application 13/94 7,818
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9, 16, and 21, and dependent
claims 10-15, 17-20, and 22-27, argued for their dependency.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 9-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13